V: Ah, I was forgetting that we are not properly introduced. I do not have a name. You can call me V. Madam Justice...this is V. V... this is Madam Justice. hello, Madam Justice.
Justice: Good evening, V.
V: There. Now we know each other. Actually, I've been a fan of yours for quite some time. Oh, I know what you're thinking...
Justice: The poor boy has a crush on me...an adolescent fatuation.
V: I beg your pardon, Madam. It isn't like that at all. I've long admired you...albeit only from a distance. I used to stare at you from the streets below when I was a child. I'd say to my father, "Who is that lady?" And he'd say "That's Madam Justice." And I'd say "Isn't she pretty."
V: Please don't think it was merely physical. I know you're not that sort of girl. No, I loved you as a person. As an ideal.
Justice: What? V! For shame! You have betrayed me for some harlot, some vain and pouting hussy with painted lips and a knowing smile!
V: I, Madam? I beg to differ! It was your infidelity that drove me to her arms!
V: Ah-ha! That surprised you, didn't it? You thought I didn't know about your little fling. But I do. I know everything! Frankly, I wasn't surprised when I found out. You always did have an eye for a man in uniform.
Justice: Uniform? Why I'm sure I don't know what you're talking about. It was always you, V. You were the only one...
V: Liar! Slut! Whore! Deny that you let him have his way with you, him with his armbands and jackboots!
V: Well? Cat got your tongue? I though as much.
V: Very well. So you stand revealed at last. you are no longer my justice. You are his justice now. You have bedded another.
Justice: Sob! Choke! Wh-who is she, V? What is her name?
V: Her name is Anarchy. And she has taught me more as a mistress than you ever did! She has taught me that justice is meaningless without freedom. She is honest. She makes no promises and breaks none. Unlike you, Jezebel. I used to wonder why you could never look me in the eye. Now I know. So good bye, dear lady. I would be saddened by our parting even now, save that you are no longer the woman I once loved.
*KABOOM!*
-"V for Vendetta"
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eumelia
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-09-05 08:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-05 08:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-05 09:48 am (UTC)All the N types put together are only about 20% of the population - and as these are half the types. So, among the N types, 4.4% is pretty damn common. (22% of the N subpopulation.) Why is this relevant? Because N types tend to gravitate towards each other.
Personally, I think the Typelogic have the most accurate descriptions on the web; Kiersy's are certainly too shallow and simplistic. However, it is important to note that JMB typing isn't really about personality traits: rather, it identifies one's perceiving/judging mental functions and preditcs one's personality based on these. So, if you want to understand the function part (which is the more helpful towards self-growth), I recommend Lifexpore (http://www.geocities.com/lifexplore/). (Read their "Function Types" section.)
no subject
Date: 2006-09-05 09:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-05 10:08 am (UTC)If you're on a personality roll, Enneagram (http://www.9types.com) would make a logical next stop. The Enneagram system focuses more on a person's motives than on mental functions, so in ways it is deeper than the other personality typing methods. (JMB and Enneagram both go deeper, and tend to be more reliable, than the other methods around.) Note, however, that the results take more careful interpretation - your true type would be among the highest scores, not neccesarily the highest of them.
If you want theoretical background on Enneagram, follow the links at the buttom of the page I directed you to. Primarily, 9type's own explanatory pages and the Enneagram Institute's tutorials - the others aren't really any good. (This includes Lifexpore. They're just about the only place on the web explaining function types, but their Enneagram section is just not good.)
no subject
Date: 2006-09-05 10:37 am (UTC)And I tend to agree with Mel, those descriptions are frightenly accurate, at least for me . . .